[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - maxheight:legal

[Shaun McDonald]

On 29 Nov 2009, at 19:27, Aun Johnsen wrote:

> Ok, we are on it again, the previous vote (that approved maxheight:physical) is way past, and some discussion have passed on maxheight:legal.
>  
> I think it is time to put the biasing from the previous proposal and vote aside, and look on this with a clearer mind. In my opinion, the aproval of maxheight:physical opens up for maxheight:legal, both of them with clear names that can be used separately or together with maxheight, without redefining maxheight. My recomendation is still to tag maxheight, even together with maxheight:physical and maxheight:legal, but let these values add more information about the restriction, and specially in countries where both types exists side by side. There are countries around the world where physical and legal restrictions have different signs, and even some places where it is known to be placed physical obrstructions lower than legal restrictions on roads.

Do you have examples of these differences between the physical and legal maximum heights, including photos, that can be included on the wiki page?

Shaun

>  
> The new proposal is located here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/maxheight:legal
>  
> Aun
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091129/2e470946/attachment.html>